An Interesting Conversation Between A Student And Teacher

Geological strata, isotope dating, and archaeologic findings dating to over 6000 years of age prove this.

So, because YOU don't believe this claim of the Bible, it doesn't matter if it's contradicted or not? I wish I could pick and chose what I believe
in like that without worrying about reality.

Since most of what I said was simply disregarded, I won't bother with much here except to say that most of what you said was "According to you" and
the Opinions of other people.

How do we date these archaeological findings? Carbon 14 dating is only accurate to about 3000, maybe 3500 years. Even then its usually way off.
There are too many variations with C-14 and its decay rate. You coul simply do a google search and find all the issues with carbon dating, yet we use
this as "proof."

I don't pick and choose. The Bible says nothing about men having one less rib. The first man had one rib removed to make woman, but that in no way
implies every male after that would have one less rib. You missed the point entirely because of your own biased agenda. The Bible does not make this
claim.

While binary relationships definitely have a place in science (existence / non-existence), tons of things in physical science are defined along a
continuum. Any serious physical scientist could also tell you that cold is the absence of heat, and not a separate entity - seriously, that's some
middle school stuff, and our philosopher should be beaten with a hose for not remembering it. The same with darkness. For fuks sake, when was the last
time it was too bright in your* room when you were trying to sleep, so you turned the "darks" on? Nonsense.

2) Science is being misrepresented by the philosopher.

Science is theory shaped to support empirical results. Like religion, it is also based on a few axiomatic assumptions, but unlike religion, there is a
constant effort to keep the set of axioms minimal. No, the philosopher cannot prove beyond any measure of uncertainty that he has a brain without
opening his head up and letting folks look inside - unless of course you want to perform any of the zillion or so non-invasive medical procedures that
can confirm it. Without resorting to that kind of common sense, though, you could simply look at all of the physiological data available to humanity
and ascertain that never in our existence has there been someone discovered who was simultaneously alive and not in possession of a brain (including a
brain stem in the definition of a brain). From that extremely convincing data set, it is only logical to assume that the philosopher has a brain -
even if he wasn't using it in physics class. No such data exists to support any of religion's claims - in fact, the existence of such would fly in
the face of the assumptions of faith. When in doubt, though, there are methods indeed available to prove the philosopher has a brain, i.e. the
conjecture that he has a brain is falsifiable..

3) Evolution is misrepresented.

There is plenty of data around to support evolution. The fact that certain religiously influenced groups of people don't want to recognize it as such
is lamentable. To see evolution in action, the philosopher wouldn't have to do much besides domesticate / breed animals, or introduce a hazardous
agent into a colony of bacteria and watch the strains with a mutation making them resistant to the agent take over the population. Maybe middle school
physics isn't the only class this dude slept through.

4) This is a Hallmark moment being sold as legitimate debate.

All too common in popular culture. While this conversation may be poignant on some superficial level, it is not at all what could be considered
discussion on a serious level. In the end, there's only two possible things I can take away from this: First, you can't get steak out of a chicken,
and second, the ex-President of India didn't have a very good philosophy teacher.

Originally posted by Mykahel
How do we date these archaeological findings? Carbon 14 dating is only accurate to about 3000, maybe 3500 years. Even then its usually way off.
There are too many variations with C-14 and its decay rate. You coul simply do a google search and find all the issues with carbon dating, yet we use
this as "proof."

No one is suggesting carbon dating. I said ISOTOPE dating. You understand that there are many different isotopes, all with different half-lives and
ranges of usability, right?

I don't pick and choose. The Bible says nothing about men having one less rib. The first man had one rib removed to make woman, but that in
no way implies every male after that would have one less rib. You missed the point entirely because of your own biased agenda. The Bible does not
make this claim.

I can grant you that, perhaps the theoretical Adam was the only one who would lack a rib. You seem to ignore my other points, though, which I would
assume means you have no explanation.

Re Splitting seas...
No, but the miracle of Fatima is interesting - Modern period sightings of the Virgin, with attendant effects. (1917) Lots of witnesses, and of course,
up-to-date analysis of the reports come across as a close encounter.

I'm a firm believer in the idea that many biblical 'miracles' were paranormal phenomena, so maybe things don't change so much after all?

"someone being fully born out of dust or a rib? No I don't think i'll see that".

Ahh, but what about cloning? You see my point? re-interpretation.

BTW, I saw Dr House explain the possibility of Virgin birth - if House says its possible, well!

Did it really happen? I doubt it. The "prof" would know about hot and cold and would understand that science measures by the absence of heat and not
by abundance of cold.

So, that's a flaw.

Also, it is highly uncommon for any academic to challenge religious faith or belief.

Who cares what people believe anyway? If you want to learn how to build a bridge, you must study the scienec of engineering. There is nothing in the
bible that tells you anything about how to make an electronic circuit work or how a plane flies or how to set up a cable system in order to have an
elevator climb 100 floors safely.

This is all achieved through the humdrum of science on a daily basis.

When's the last time faith grew some food and made you a sandwich?

When's the last time you prayed to a particle collider?

It really doesn't matter and it is the height of stupidity for one to even bother trying to encroach on the other.

a scientist can be faithful to his god and still practice good science.

The argument is moot and has no value. Of course we subscribe to dualism. We have to in order to navigate through this world and this life.

Go sit on a mountain and be one with your god if you're not into it I guess.

Meanwhile, science has afforded us better living, longer lifespans, better hospitals, better technology and it is getting better and better.

what has religion given us? endless wars? intolerance towards others? my god is better than yours. you will never understand my god? what exactly does
it give us anymore?

God is fine. God is all around you all the time. Take a breath. That is god. God is in everything.

Religion on the other hand should be done away with as soon as possible. It is corrupted and at the end of it's time of value. There is no value in
any church any more. They are breeding grounds of ignorance and intolerance only.

churches, synagogues, mosques and temples should all be converted to soup kitchens for the homeless. Then they would at least be somewhat useful.

communing can be done anywhere. God is everywhere, he doesn't need a priest or imam or rabbi or monk to speak through.

Over the years I've seen that same story with both famous people and nobodies as the student. It's attributed to famous people because for people
with just a glancing view, it gives that story credibility.

Regardless, the story is a great interpretation of the divide between religion and science.

There are two major differences:

Science is based off of truth and is provable by the repeatable success and confirmation of viewing this proof. It's what turns a theory into a
scientific fact. It's relative to the group experience.

Religion is based on faith. Faith is impossible to prove to others and is relative to an individual's experience.

Science also has no choice to admit when it's wrong. That's the scientific process. When something has been observed as a scientific fact, yet that
same thing is viewed with a different result, science has no choice but to review the results and adjust the facts.

That same thing is what kills religious faith. When something is seen as absolute truth in a religion and then that same thing is proven to be either
untrue or faulty, religion doesn't warrant study of it. They either sweep it under the carpet or invalidate the newer information because it doesn't
adhere to the original information, which is canon and can't possibly be wrong.

I don't think it's wrong to have faith in a God. But it's a PERSONAL thing and becomes fair game for anyone wanting to debunk your "religion",
whatever it may be. Once you make your "religion" public, you're fair game for anyone. Exactly the same as science.

To be fair, it is thought provoking but in the "spiritual" camp not the science camp. Some interesting titbits to add:
- Nature does create clones - they are called identical twins
- Interesting point that you would read an engineering book to build a birdge not the bible; especially as Pi is 3.0 in the bible (Kings 7:23), does
that mean that the Pope's wheels will fall off!
- On the point of our sense collecting the information, our world is beautifully constructed by Newtons Laws, but as soon as we go to planet level or
atomic level, those laws get a bit silly (relativity & Planck). Is this because our senses are actually making the laws beautiful?

As an Agnostic, I can't use the word God but can use the word Nature (as above). Although I see no duality in Nature although it is savage and brutal
and beautiful at the same time. There is randomness which creates order but not intelligent order as suggested by a God

I've heard this story before. It's always some meaningful figure from history or whatever. Most famously perhaps; Albert Einstein.
The story is always a little bit different, in the Einstein story he used just the points of heat and light and then making the point that evil is
just absence of good. What I'm going at here is; that however "nice" these stories sound, they're indeed stories and most likely fake. For what
purpose? I can't answer, because I'm not sure.

A parable is a brief, succinct story, in prose or verse, that illustrates a moral or religious lesson. It differs from
a fable in that fables use animals, plants, inanimate objects, and forces of nature as characters, while parables generally feature human characters.
It is a type of analogy.[1]

Some scholars of the New Testament apply the term "parable" only to the parables of Jesus,[2] though that is not a common restriction of the term.
Parables such as "The Prodigal Son" are central to Jesus' teaching method in both the canonical narratives and the apocrypha.

It is often used as a way to get people to listen to an idea or thought by wrapping it up in a story or "parable". It is a very effective method of
conveying idea's and is used in most children's books as a way to teach idea's or demonstrate lessons.

The OP would have no way of knowing one way or the other. When these get passed around for a while, whether or not they are a story used for teaching
or an actual event which occurred is obscured. It really does not matter as the whole idea is promote discussion and demonstrate.

Hoax in this case would be a misnomer and give an incorrect representation of the OP's intent. A person who is unreasonably biased against people of
faith could however use it wrongly to attack them or their point.

The only thing I see in this post is an attempt to convey the idea that no person can honestly say, there is no God. They can say, I believe
there is no God, but that would be an act of faith equal to that of those who say they believe there is a God. Neither side can prove their belief one
way or the other.

If it were some unnamed student then yes, it would be a parable. As soon as you claim that student is some public figure, it becomes a hoax.

I don't believe the OP is the source of this hoax, or that he knew it to be one when he posted, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a hoax.

Thats why I asked the OP earlier, whether they could provide proof that the conversation actually took place.
If the conversation didn't take place, then surely the thread should be classed as a HOAX and moved accordingly?

Do you love your wife, parents or children?
How much do you love them?

OK, prove it.

Some things you can't quantify or measure scientifically. Yet that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

We certainly could put a measure on it.

We could ask if you were willing to perform some sort of sacrifice on their behalf. Hypothetically we could test it by playing the scenario out for
real. It wouldn't be a particularly accurate measurement, but it would be a measurement none the less.

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.